State contraceptive coverage laws: creative responses to questions of "conscience".
نویسنده
چکیده
The Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) guaranteed contraceptive coverage for employees of the federal government. However, opponents of the FEHBP contraceptive coverage questioned the viability of the conscience clause. Supporters of the contraceptive coverage pressed for the narrowest exemption, one that only permit religious plans that clearly states religious objection to contraception. There are six of the nine states that have enacted contraceptive coverage laws aimed at the private sector. The statutes included a provision of conscience clause. The private sector disagrees to the plan since almost all of the employees¿ work for employers who only offer one plan. The scope of exemption for employers was an issue in five states that have enacted the contraceptive coverage. In Hawaii and California, it was exemplified that if employers are exempted from the contraceptive coverage based on religious grounds, an employee will be entitled to purchase coverage directly from the plan. There are still questions on how an insurer, who objects based on religious grounds to a plan with contraceptive coverage, can function in a marketplace where such coverage is provided by most private sector employers.
منابع مشابه
Drafting a "sensible" conscience clause: a proposal for meaningful conscience protections for religious employers objecting to the mandated coverage of prescription contraceptives.
متن کامل
Conscience clauses and oral contraceptives: conscientious objection or calculated obstruction?
This article examines the ethical and legal implications of conscience clauses, which allow pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for oral contraceptives due to their belief that they may constitute abortifacients. The author provides an informative background on contraception and the history of how abortion has been viewed in this country, then takes a critical look at some of the consci...
متن کاملUnconscionable: how the U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisprudence lags behind the world when it comes to contraception and conscience
U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence undermines access to contraception by permitting individuals, institutions, and even corporations to claim religious objections to ensuring contraceptive insurance coverage, thus imposing those beliefs on non-adherents and jeopardizing their access to essential reproductive-health services. This jurisprudence is not only harmful but also runs contrary to the law...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The Guttmacher report on public policy
دوره 2 4 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1999